**Next message:**Andrew_Kliman: "[OPE-L:3979] Re: TheTransformation Non-Problem and the Non-Transformation Problem"**Previous message:**Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3977] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: m in Marxs theory"**Next in thread:**Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3991] Re: Re: Fundamental Un-Marxian Theorem"**Reply:**Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3991] Re: Re: Fundamental Un-Marxian Theorem"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

In OPE-L 3611, Gil Skillman (wrongly) alleged that the simultaneist Fundamental "Marxian" Theorem has been proven for real-world capitalist economies: "the PROOF of the Fundamental Marxian Theorem for a multi-commodity economy requires the use of the Frobenius-Perron theorem about linear systems, which wasn't established when Marx wrote. ... [His] stories, besides being logically problematic, are completely unnecessary to ESTABLISH the logical correspondence of profit and CAPITALIST exploitation." [emphases added] In OPE-L 3616, I pointed out that this was untrue: "the Fundamental Marxian [sic] Theorem DOES NOT HOLD IN ACTUAL ECONOMIES. ... under the standard (simultaneist and dual-system) interpretation of Marx's value theory ... surplus-labor is neither necessary nor sufficient for the existence of positive profit, EVEN IN THE SINGLE PRODUCTION CASE (i.e., no joint production)." In OPE-L 3621, Gil DENIED that he had alleged (wrongly) that the simultaneist Fundamental "Marxian" Theorem has been proven for real-world capitalist economies: "I made no commitment to any particular interpretation of value, simultaneist, sequentialist, or otherwise, nor did I assert the universal validity of the 'Fundamental Marxian Theorem.' I only said that claim (1) [Capitalist profit corresponds to surplus value, which corresponds to capitalist exploitation of labor] was tantamount to the claim of that theorem." This is just false. What Gil asserted, let us recall, was this: "the PROOF of the Fundamental Marxian Theorem for a multi-commodity economy requires the use of the Frobenius-Perron theorem about linear systems, which wasn't established when Marx wrote. ... [His] stories, besides being logically problematic, are completely unnecessary to ESTABLISH the logical correspondence of profit and CAPITALIST exploitation." [emphases added] So Gil's denial is clearly false. He NOT "only said" the two claims are equivalent. He also alleged (incorrectly) that the simultaneist Fundamental "Marxian" Theorem has been proven for real-world capitalist economies. Gil also tried to go on the attack, by means of a truly preposterous claim that "the logical force of Andrew's argument attacks Marx's analysis": "if claim one is contradicted, as Andrew asserts, then it *must be true* that Marx's aggregative equality has been violated as well. This is an indictment of *Marx* rather than of the "simultaneist" interpretation of Marx ... " The reason this is preposterous is that I simply did NOT say that claim (1) is contradicted -- and Gil damned well knows it, or should have known it. In the post to which he was responding, I had made clear that "the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx's value theory is the only existing interpretation according to which surplus-labor IS both necessary and sufficient for positive profit" [emphasis added]. There is no such thing as claim (1) as such. Rather there are two different claims: (1M) Marx's (implicit) claim that surplus-labor (S) is necessary and sufficient for profit (P). (1S) The claim of the simultaneist F"M"T that "surplus-labor"-as-defined-by-simultaneism (SLADBS) is necessary and sufficient for "profit"-as-defined-by-simultaneism (PADBS). What I have asserted -- and proved -- is not that "claim (1) is contradicted" but that claim (1S) is contradicted. Marx's OWN claim (1M) and his aggregate equalities emerge unscathed. What is thus indicted are indeed only the simultaneist interpretations, which cannot replicate Marx's result, while a non-simultaneist interpretation can and does replicate this result. Gil states that my analysis "is an indictment of *Marx* rather than of the "simultaneist" interpretation of Marx, because as we know there is at least one "simultaneist" interpretation--the so-called new solution--that yields Marx's aggregative equalities." Gil, you just haven't understood the issue. Please study my paper. It is true that there's an aggregate equality (proportionality) between "surplus-labor" and "profit" under the New Interpretation ("new solution"). But as I state -- and prove -- in the paper, NI "surplus-labor" is still NOT SUFFICIENT for the existence of NI "profit." The equality (proportionality) is PROFIT = MELT * SURPLUS-LABOR where the MELT = (AGGREGATE PRICE OF NET PRODUCT)/(LIVING LABOR). Now when net outputs of some goods are negative, the aggregate price of the net product can be *negative* at some market prices, even if surplus-labor and living labor are positive. If that is the case, then the MELT is *negative*. So we have *positive* surplus-labor but *negative* profit, despite the "equality" of the two. Andrew Kliman

**Next message:**Andrew_Kliman: "[OPE-L:3979] Re: TheTransformation Non-Problem and the Non-Transformation Problem"**Previous message:**Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3977] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: m in Marxs theory"**Next in thread:**Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3991] Re: Re: Fundamental Un-Marxian Theorem"**Reply:**Gil Skillman: "[OPE-L:3991] Re: Re: Fundamental Un-Marxian Theorem"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Tue Oct 31 2000 - 00:00:08 EST
*